http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES UNION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH          CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2990,2991,2992, OF 1997 (Arising out  of SLP (C) Nos. 14116, 13533, 19232, 13055/96, and 4088-98/97)                             AND                    I.A. NOS. 8-10 OF 1997                              IN              civil appeal nos. 15532-34 of 1996                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      These appeals  arise from  the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court made on march 27,1996 in W.P. Nos.1494/89, 2362/90  and  504/1991.  The  appellant-workmen came to  be employed  as sweepers  in International Airport, National  Airport   Cargo  Complex   and  Import  Warehouse. Consequent upon the abolition of the contract labour system, with effect  from December  9, 1976  in  the  light  of  the judgment of  this Court  in Air  India Statutory Corporation Etc   v. United Labour Union & Ors. Etc. [1996 (9) SCALE 70] they are  also entitled  to be  regularised with effect from the date  of the  judgment of  the High  Court and where the matter is  not covered  by the judgment with effect from the date of  the judgment  rendered on December 6, 1996, as held in Masih Charan & Ors. v. U.O.I. & Ors. in Writ Petition (C) No.219/1995 dated March 10, 1997.      Shri Singhvi  and Ms.  Indira  Jaising  learned  senior counsel have  brought to  our notice  that the  workmen have been working  for a  long time. Though the regularisation of their services  with effect  from the  date of  judgment was given by this Court since they have come in appeal by virtue of that  part of the judgment in these cases, viz., they are not entitled  to the  benefit from the date of the abolition of the contract labour system, the same benefit may be given from the date of the judgment of the High Court. With a view to maintain  uniformity in  the orders passed, we think that the procedure  adopted earlier  would be the feasible one in the fact-situation  namely, where  the matter  is covered by the judgment  of the  High Court, the regularisation will be International Airports Authority Employees Union & Anr. etc. etc.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

with effect  from the  respective dates. Where the matter is not covered  by the judgment of the High Court, i.e., in the case filed  under Article  32. it  operates from the date of the  judgment of this Court in  India Statutory  Corpn. etc. v. United  Labour Union & Ors. [1996 (9) SCALE 70]. However, since they  have been  working for  a long time prior to the abolition of the contract labour system  where the principle of  pension   and  gratuity  scheme  is  in  operation,  the authorities are  directed to  compute the previous length of service from  the date  of appointment by contract till they retire from service for the purpose of all retiral benefits. However, if  there is  any dispute as to the date from which they are  working, it  is always  open to the respondents to verify the  same with prior notice to the respective workmen or accredited  agents, as  the case  may be, and then decide that particular controversy in an individual case.      The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. C.A @ S.L.P. (C) NO. 14116/96      Leave granted.      This controversy  also involves three type of  workmen, namely, sweepers,  canteen,  workers  and  cabin    catering cleaners. As  far as  the  sweepers  are  concerned,  it  is covered by  the judgment  of this Court Air Statutory Corpn. etc. v.  United Labour  Union &  Ors.[1996  (9)  SCALE  70]. Therefore, they  are entitled  to regularisation with effect from the date of  the judgment of the High Court. Though the High Court  has disallowed  the relief  since we allowed the similar benefit,  they are  entitled to the benefit from the date of  the High  Court judgment.  With regard  to  canteen workers the  matter requires  remittance for reconsideration by the  High Court in the light of the judgment in Air India International Authority case and other cases on the subject. Therefore, the  High Court is requested to consider the case afresh.      The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.      C.A...... @ S.L.P. (C) No. 13533/96 & 19232/96      leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides. ;      These appeals  by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division bench of the Bombay High Court made on march 27, 1996 in W.P. No. 431/22 and 1439/51.      The appellants  are challenging the order directing the Central Advisory  Board constituted  under Section 10 of the Contract Labour  (Regulation and  Abolition) Act,  1970 (for International Airports Authority Employees Union & Anr. etc. etc. short the  ’Act). The  workers represented by the appellants were employed  at Staff  Colony at  Kalina  Indian  Airlines buildings owned  by the  Air India.  Their case is that they are employed  as contract labour by the various employers on behalf of  the principal  employer, namely,  Air India.  The Notification  dated   December  9,   1976  relates   to  the abolition  of  the  contract  labour  engaged  in  sweeping, cleaning, dusting  and watching  of buildings  owned by  Air India. As  a consequence,  they  are  also  entitled  to  be appointed on regular basis. They relied upon the judgment of this Court  in Air  India Statutory  Corpn. etc.  v.  United Labour Union  & Ors.  [1996 (9)  SCALE  70].  Shri  Singhvi, learned senior  counsel contends  that in  view of the above decision and  in vies  of the notification they are entitled to the  same benefit  which was  given to  the employees who were directed  to be  regularised in the above judgment. The High Court  has not examined the matter in true perspective. Instead of  directing Central  Advisory Board to go into the question, the High Court would go into and decide the matter

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

in accordance with law. We decline to express any opinion on merits since  we are remitting the matter  to the High Court for reconsideration.  We would,  therefore, request the High Court  to  dispose  of  the    matter  as  expeditiously  as possible.      The appeals  are,  accordingly,  allowed.  No    costs. Status quo as on today shall continue.      C.A. ...@ S.L.P. (C) Nos. 4088-4093/97      Delay condoned. Leave granted.      In view  of the  decision taken  by this  Court in  Air India Statutory  Corpn. v.  United Labour Union & Ors. [1996 (9)  SCALE   70]  since   National  Labour   Advisory  Board constituted under  Section 10  of the Act has not opined for abolition of  posts  in  which  these  workers  employed  on contract labour in the Trolley Retrievers (W.P No. 1494/89), Loaders (W.P.  No.1494/89), Bird Chasers (W.P. No. 1263/91), Conveyor Belt  Workers (W.P.  Nos.  2641/92,  1256/96)  Car- parking  Clerks   (W.P.   No.   2362/90)      (Employed   at International and  National Airports of Airport Authority of India), Electrical  maintenance Workers,  (W.P. No.  433/92) and Civil appropriate course to be adopted by the High Court would be to direct that the Board to examine the matters and then give  necessary advice  to the  Government of India for taking appropriate action under Section 10.      The appeals  are accordingly dismissed but they will be subject to decision by the Board. No costs. Status quo would continue. Those  who were  dismissed earlier are directed to be reinstated.      C.A. . @ S.L.P. (C) No. 13055/96 International Airports Authority Employees Union & Anr. etc. etc.      Leave granted.      This appeal  arises from  the judgment  of the Division Bench of  the Bombay  High Court  in W.P.  No. 498/87  dated February 28,  1996. The  controversy raised  in this case is squarely Covered  by the judgment of this Court in Air India Statutory corporation  etc.   v. United  labour union & Ors. [1996 (9)  SCALE  70].  Their  contract  was  terminated  in December 1983  and they challenged the writ petition in 1987 and High  Court, therefore  was justified  in dismissing the writ petition  on the ground of limitation. We find no force in the   contention.  They worked for 12 years upto December 1983 and  thereafter when  they were sought to be terminated they filed  a complaint  on December 18, 1933  under the Act against the contractor. They obtained interim order from the competent authority  restraining   the first respondent from terminating the contract of workers. Before receipt thereof, they served the termination order dated December 19-20, 1933 and effected  termination. Consequently  they filed  a fresh application  on   December  22  1983.  Therein  they  sought reinstatement. The  High Court  of  Bombay  in  the  similar matter has  held that since the notification applies only to the Central  Government and  the State  Government  has  not issued the  notification, the  termination order was upheld. When the matter was initiated in the M.R.T.P. Act the Labour Court also  took the  same view.  Under these circumstances, they came  to be  filed. Thus,  it could  be seen  that  the Government have  not considered every matter. They have been agitating the  rights  in  one  form  or  the  other.  As  a consequence, they  are entitled  to the  same benefit as was given in the earlier appeals.      The appeal  is accordingly,  allowed. They are entitled to be  reinstated and  have their  services regularised.  No costs.      I.A. Nos. 8-1O/1997 in C.A. Nos 15532-34/96

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

    I.As. are dismissed.      Contempt Petition (C) Nos.235-237/97      No contempt in view of the above clarifications.